Refuting Objections to the
Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's
Existence

by Josh Hickok

It is my opinion that
the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is one of the best arguments that one can
use as evidence of God’s existence. Not only are its premises hard to deny, its
conclusion seems as sound as almost any other that could be drawn from
speculative and observational arguments. Nonetheless, skeptics have worked hard
to create objections towards it. The purpose of this is to give a sampling of
the objections aimed at KCA’s current defenders and to look at some of the
historical figures of this debate to see what they’ve said about it.

Objection #1

“Why shouldn’t God
need a cause if the universe does?” Thanks to Bertrand Russell, this was one of
the more popular responses to the KCA in the early 20th century. In
his “Why I Am Not a Christian” essay, he quotes J.S. Mill that “the question
‘who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question ‘who made God?’” He adds, “Very simple sentence showed me, as I still
think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have
a cause, then God must have a cause.”[1]
We as Christians simply stack the deck and pre-define God as the First Cause.

Answer: Most defenders
of the KCA hear this one quite often. Should we be worried about it? I don’t
think so. First off, Russell misstates the case the theist delivers (unless he
was referring to the principle of sufficient reason, as some think). The KCA
says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
The whole point of the argument is to show that something CAN exist without a
cause, namely, God. But are we wrong in assuming that God doesn’t need a cause,
while the universe does? Absolutely not! The point that the theist needs to
reinforce is the reason why the universe needed a cause. This is the
“Impossibility of traversing an infinite” rule that is talked about in the
KCA article. God escapes this because there is
nothing successive about God’s nature. He is traditionally viewed as
unchanging, and this is metaphysically necessary as well. God did not have to
endure through an infinite timeline as the world would have needed to.

Objection #2

David Hume argued that
the finite nature of the universe only necessitates (I used the word necessary
as a joke for those familiar with Hume’s views on causality!) a finite cause.
Therefore, we are beyond our epistemic rights to posit an infinite cause.

Answer: This objection
does not take into account that a finite cause could NOT be the first cause. If
the first cause was finite (not perfect in every way) then it is not the
greatest of all possible beings, and therefore not God. So while it is possible
that the creation of our universe was caused by another universe, or some sort
of minor god (like an angel or demon), it still would have to have a cause
behind that one. Hence, an infinite cause is the only way to break the regress
of causes.

Objection #3

There is evidence that
particles can just pop out of nothing. Quantum fluctuations can provide any
combination of particles. It is therefore false to assume that everything that
began to exist had something to cause it.

Answer: This oft-cited
“evidence” of uncaused creation is misunderstood. While it may be true that
“virtual particles” are the result of the activity of a quantum vacuum, this
vacuum is not “nothing” in the real sense of the word. This vacuum is teeming
with energy, has physical dimensions and is still governed by quantum laws. All
the apologist must do to answer this is to ask, “Well, where did the vacuum come
from?”

Objection #4

The KCA commits the
four-term fallacy. This means that the predicate[2]
in the first premise does not match the one used in the conclusion. For
example…

All cats are fish eaters.

Some mammals are cats.

Therefore, some mammals are bird eaters.

Of course, the problem is
easy to spot here. The terms have been switched, so the argument doesn’t work.
For the argument to work, the term “bird eaters” would need to be changed to
“fish eaters.”

The skeptic does the
same thing for the KCA…

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The skeptic maintains that the cause in
the first premise is much different than the one referred to in the conclusion.
They say that cause in the first premise means a finite cause, but the one in
the conclusion means infinite cause, hence two separate terms here. This is
what they say the argument means…

Everything that begins to exist has a finite
cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has an infinite cause.

Is it true that the
argument is rendered invalid because we are using a sleight of hand to sneak in
an infinite Creator?

Answer: This objection
seems rare, but many criticisms of the KCA stem from this misunderstanding (like
Hume’s analysis). Actually, the solution is quite easy. There is a possibility
of two successful answers here. The first deals with the actual meaning of
cause. One must only reply that the word cause doesn’t stand for any particular
type of cause, but the meaning in general. In other words, it doesn’t mean
finite or infinite, just something that brings something else into existence.

The second answer,
which I find more agreeable, is to elaborate on the term cause in both the first
premise and the conclusion. Then, tell them that the argument is valid because
the conclusion is not greater than the first premise, but is merely a
reduction. What does all that mean? Here’s the modified argument (which I only
do when this objection comes up)…

Everything that begins to exist has either a
finite cause or an infinite cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a finite cause or
an infinite cause.

Using the answer to
objection 2, you can rule out the finite cause option. The KCA stands yet
again!

Objection #5

It is possible that an
infinite timeframe has taken place. Bertrand Russell proved that a person
yelling out an infinite amount of numbers is only a physical impossibility, but
not a mathematical one.

Answer: This indeed
would be possible, but Bertrand Russell is giving an example of a potential
infinite rather than an actual one. What this means is that Russell proved a
potential infinite timeline could be crossed, because you will always have a
real number. But what he doesn’t realize is that the universe’s timeline would
be an actual infinite. In Russell’s case, you would never reach infinity, but
in the universe going backwards in time (like we have to try to do to
find a beginning), you have a set of numbers, albeit an infinite one. On top of
that, to start out with a potential infinite is starting with a number and
counting forever, while in actuality you don’t have this number to start
with—you could never begin at a number on a timeline that doesn’t begin! Some
would say (and have in debates) that you can just start arbitrarily at some
number and go on to infinity. However, this presupposes that the number chosen
is the first number in time, which presupposes a start, and the starter.[3]

Objection #6

Stephen Hawking says
that the universe could be unbounded. He says that “The quantum theory of
gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to
space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the
boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke
down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some
new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: ‘the
boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe
would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside of
itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”[4]

He basically says that
time is not something that is linear. Rather, it is more like a ball, a sphere
at which there is no absolute starting point, but is also finite. Rather,
Hawking invokes “imaginary time”, which avoids the trouble of an infinite
regress. If so, then God is rendered superfluous.

Answer: Imaginary time
is a concept in mathematics, but cannot be explained when applied to reality,
much less imaginary time. What is it? Is it time or not? If not, then what
started the time we experience now? If it is time, then what differentiates
imaginary time from real time? There is nothing to suggest “imaginary time”
correlates to reality, or is even a possibility.

Even if imaginary
time could indeed exist, it does not avoid the singularity that occurs when it
turns into real time. It is my (like many others) opinion that Hawking is
avoiding something, and is going through a host of bad metaphysic to get there.
Mind you, I'm not saying Hawking is an irrational man- I presume him to be the
worlds foremost authority on theoretical physics in general. Unfortunately, we
are all prone to mistakes and errors, which some feel he has committed here.[5]

Objection #7

Perhaps God did cause
the universe, but who’s to say He still exists now? Isn't it possible that God
has expired just like the many things that have already?

Answer: By definition,
God is one that cannot not exist. If He ever did exist then he has to
exist now. But granting that God could die, there is still a major problem here
– what could cause God to not exist? If there is something that is more
powerful than God, then this “God” is not really the Supreme Being. Hence, we
were at fault to call this lesser being God. But isn’t this just a linguistic
sleight of hand? I don’t think so. Especially when you take into consideration
that God is the uncaused Causer, the Infinite and the All-powerful. He is also
a spirit not subject to the wears and tears of the physical world. This is a
source of many problems, that is, anthropomorphizing God and making Him subject
to the laws governing the finite universe.

Objection #8

Who's to say that the
cause is God?

Answer: I considered
this in my Martin book review (coming soon). My reply was
this-

“He raises two
objections here – the first is that the “cause” need not be God. But is this a
fair assessment? I don’t think so, at least. What sort of cause could we infer
as the “efficient cause” of the series of events? A cause cannot give something
it hasn’t got. So when a cause produces something (say a match producing a
flame) the cause had that potentiality stored in it. So what Aquinas’ does is
argue that since everything around us must have been produced by an able cause,
this cause must at least resemble the effects.[6]
Now when we see something like intelligence, is it not fair to presume that
intelligence was actualized by a greater cause? And must not this cause have
intelligence to give? If so, then you are looking at something that possesses
an enormous amount of intelligence, power and also must have been the
efficient cause.

But couldn’t this
efficient cause been something other than God? Perhaps the universe[7]
is the efficient cause. The theist can answer that the universe is made of only
potential effects (that is, our existence is only possible). Since the universe
is composed of potential effects, than the universe as a whole is only
potential. Indeed, one can imagine the universe not existing as
possible. The universe is not a necessary cause. But wait a minute; aren’t I
committing the composition fallacy? That is, aren’t I suggesting that just
because the universe is made of contingent parts it too must be contingent? A
mosaic may be made out of square pieces, but this does not make the mosaic
square. This is where a distinction must be made between the two types of
properties: qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative would be a property that
changes when added up, and qualitative would be something that is static not
matter what the quantity is. Quality is about-ness. For example, no matter how
many bricks I put into a brick wall, the bricks will have the same physical
makeup. This is the same as such terms as “potential”, and “contingent” – no
matter how many contingents I put together, there will just be a greater number
of the same thing – a contingent collection, if you will.

So if the universe
cannot be the efficient cause, what could? This is where I must infer a
personal cause. There is nothing that says that universe is necessary, and the
possibility of something does not explain why it was actualized. So, to end
this regress, I’ll give an example of the two sorts of efficient causes.

The first cause can
be termed as scientific. This means that independent of motive, we know what
causes what. For example; my wife goes to put a chicken in the stove. The
scientific effect is that the chicken will heat up and broil. So when I ask her
why a chicken’s cooking, she replies that it’s because the oven is so hot it
changes the physical makeup of the chicken. Or, she could answer with a
personal reason, or give a personal cause – it’s because we were hungry and her
intention was to cure this negative feeling. That is a personal cause.

The point is that
you cannot give an efficient scientific cause to the universe – only a personal
one will do.”

Despite their numerous attempts, the skeptics and
critics have failed to lodge a successful argument against the KCA. As such,
the KCA stands as overwhelming evidence for God’s existence.

[2] When used in logic,
the term “predicate” does not necessarily refer to the same term(s) as
it does in English.

[3] This objection also
fails for scientific reasons. There is a finite amount of usable energy
in the universe. Once expended, the universe would undergo a “heat
death.” If the universe has been here for an infinite amount of time
(an impossibility) then there would not be any energy left.

[5] This is not the first
time Hawking intentionally avoided an issue. He repeatedly fails to
address the problem (for Big Bangers) of galaxy formation. He has
occasionally included this problem in a list but has never provided an
answer other than citing imaginary concepts such as dark matter and a
parallel brane world. This is not science – it is imagination.

[6] I don’t mean, of
course, resemble in an aesthetic sense, only that the potentiality was
there in the originating cause.

[7] I am suggesting that
the term “universe” means the sum total of the physical.